The Resurrection- How do you refute it?

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by Halcyon
Perhaps it would save confusion to term religion as something like 'a developed unified belief-structure conformed to by a number of people', and not as a single belief. Otherwise, we're all incredibly religious because we don't believe that the sky is pink, or that stars are circles of radius two feet imprinted on the underbelly of H'thar the All-Encompassing.

Drop the unified bit and we've got a deal. It's just not a religion without the disunity, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Halcyon]

There's generally unity on some level, despite the number of variations on a theme. It depends on whether you consider Anglicanism a different religion to Catholicism, or Sunni a different religion to Shi'a.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Otherwise, we're all incredibly religious because we don't believe that the sky is pink, or that stars are circles of radius two feet imprinted on the underbelly of H'thar the All-Encompassing.

Don't jump to conclusions - there are some weird characters on this board

 

[Halcyon]

Doubtless, though I might not consider them and I a 'we'. If that makes sense.

 

[Civvin]

Oh I just got back from dinner and I gotta jump back in and stir the pot

Just briefly what is the big thing about Noah's arc that makes it impossible?

Now I can see you going to town about the Flood itself but curious where you are coming from about the Ark itself?

Is it the size vs every animal in the world?

600 cubits is pretty damn big

and why would there have to be 2 of every subspecies? in fact it says there was 7 of some types and 2 of others and science itself has proven that all the genetic diversity on earth today in the human race, and thats quite a range, comes from a common mother, courtesy of mitochondrial dna examination.

Plus birds could live off the debris field, and obviously aquatic life is not included, just curious whats the showstopper on this one?

Wouldnt you much rather ask how the 'highest mountains were covered by 40 feet of water'?

 

[Halcyon]

Originally posted by Civvin
science itself has proven that all the genetic diversity on earth today in the human race, and thats quite a range, comes from a common mother, courtesy of mitochondrial dna examination.

A fairly small number of common ancestors is what you'd expect from selection and chance mutation, too. Not every australopithacene in a population decided to make a magic jump to Homo Sapiens - if it's a chance mutation that does it, that individual will be the genetic progenitor of every member of the species its descendants become.

It's fairly obvious that the story of the flood is either fiction or rather heavily exaggerated, though. That's not really a matter of debate - only faith would let you believe that without question, and you can't debate with a fanatic.

 

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by Civvin
I still say its hypocrisy to deny things on basis of implausibility when your own belief system requires belief in implausible, unprovable, events, and I will say that till I die.

GOOD DAY ALL and thanks for a great topic!

Please explain how being an atheist requires belief in implausible events?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The flood itself is just plain impossible, I mean we're talking about the difference in volume between two spheres [with radii of "sea level" and "sea level plus some eight kilometers"]. If you do the math, that is 220 METERS of rainfall every day. The greatest rainfall anyone's ever seen is on some Hawaiian mountain, and there [this is the big record] it was something like fourteen feet.

As for the ark.. er... well, how did the kangaroos get back to Australia? Did Noah pack forty days worth of dried eucalyptus leaves [the only thing koalas will eat]?

Not to mention that there is zero, zip, nada evidence of any sort of global flood geologically. Major local floods, yes, especially in the Black Sea area, but global - no.

Finally, the Ark could never have surpassed the size of a good-sized schooner. For one thing, the technology was amazingly primitive. Plus, wood sags. Try building an oil tanker out of wood and it'll break in two - even before you put anything in it. There is a size limit. Carrying millions and millions of species is clearly crossing over it. In fact, I have no idea how big 600 square cubits is, but I bet you couldn't build a boat that large. The gigantic ships of the Age of Sail - men of war and all that - themselves are pushing the limit.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
The flood itself is just plain impossible, I mean we're talking about the difference in volume between two spheres [with radii of "sea level" and "sea level plus some eight kilometers"]. If you do the math, that is 220 METERS of rainfall every day. The greatest rainfall anyone's ever seen is on some Hawaiian mountain, and there [this is the big record] it was something like fourteen feet.

As for the ark.. er... well, how did the kangaroos get back to Australia? Did Noah pack forty days worth of dried eucalyptus leaves [the only thing koalas will eat]?

Not to mention that there is zero, zip, nada evidence of any sort of global flood geologically. Major local floods, yes, especially in the Black Sea area, but global - no.

Finally, the Ark could never have surpassed the size of a good-sized schooner. For one thing, the technology was amazingly primitive. Plus, wood sags. Try building an oil tanker out of wood and it'll break in two - even before you put anything in it. There is a size limit. Carrying millions and millions of species is clearly crossing over it.

Only the Christian equivalent of the suicide bombers would argue with you here...

 

[Civvin]

Originally posted by andrewgprv
Please explain how being an atheist requires belief in implausible events?

As I have mentioned about 3 or 4 times now atheism requires belief in evolution which is still a 'theory'.

And several atheists have admitted as such already so please dont tell me its fact, it may be a strong theory and supported by certain empirical evidence, but it isn't proven.

A quick check of some scientific literature on the probability of certain steps necessary for evolution to occur lists probabilities in excess, by magnitudes, of the value at which scientists prescribe that an occurence would never occur as the chance is so large.

I don't have the numbers off hand but for example if something has a 1 in 10to the 25th power of happening then the chance is that it will never occur (that number i just made up for example, ill have to check what the real value is), whereas the chance that a certain amino acid would combine with another to make a protein in one of the stepping stones to creating life is like 10 to the 40th power, and thats just one of the steps. These numbers are so large we are talking about even if every heavenly body was waist deep in a primordial soup of molecules, these events still would have that small of a chance of happening.

Yet the fossil evidence points to evolution so evolution must have occured regardless of the probabilities. And again down the slippery slope we tread towards that thing called faith.

 

[Civvin]

Originally posted by Halcyon
A fairly small number of common ancestors is what you'd expect from selection and chance mutation, too. Not every australopithacene in a population decided to make a magic jump to Homo Sapiens - if it's a chance mutation that does it, that individual will be the genetic progenitor of every member of the species its descendants become.

It's fairly obvious that the story of the flood is either fiction or rather heavily exaggerated, though. That's not really a matter of debate - only faith would let you believe that without question, and you can't debate with a fanatic.

I said one, not a small number, yes science has linked every human alive on earth to one common female anscestor, its an interesting read.

And I really dont understand why several of you think I'm a fanatic, do you not understand 'tongue in cheek'? Obviously its impossible to cover the earth to a depth of 40 feet like the bible says.

 

[polymath]

Aah, OK, but evolution doesn't say anything about how life started. It just says what happens when life does get started.

 

[Civvin]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
The flood itself is just plain impossible, I mean we're talking about the difference in volume between two spheres [with radii of "sea level" and "sea level plus some eight kilometers"]. If you do the math, that is 220 METERS of rainfall every day. The greatest rainfall anyone's ever seen is on some Hawaiian mountain, and there [this is the big record] it was something like fourteen feet.

As for the ark.. er... well, how did the kangaroos get back to Australia? Did Noah pack forty days worth of dried eucalyptus leaves [the only thing koalas will eat]?

Not to mention that there is zero, zip, nada evidence of any sort of global flood geologically. Major local floods, yes, especially in the Black Sea area, but global - no.

Finally, the Ark could never have surpassed the size of a good-sized schooner. For one thing, the technology was amazingly primitive. Plus, wood sags. Try building an oil tanker out of wood and it'll break in two - even before you put anything in it. There is a size limit. Carrying millions and millions of species is clearly crossing over it. In fact, I have no idea how big 600 square cubits is, but I bet you couldn't build a boat that large. The gigantic ships of the Age of Sail - men of war and all that - themselves are pushing the limit.

This is great stuff, and this is what you need to hammer home when arguing with Christians, instead of engaging in metaphysical discussions that go nowhere and where you stand on somewhat shaky ground.

 

[Halcyon]

Look, try to understand this simple concept. Being termed an atheist does not require a belief in Darwinism. It doesn't even exclude you from belief in creationism - you might think that the world and its denizens were made by aliens, or Vladimir Putin. Being termed an atheist only requires that you not believe in the existence of divine entities. Nothing else!

 

[polymath]

And the universe is so enormous that maybe life occurring was inevitable. It might just be us here, and it took 15 billion years for that to happen. Actually, I find it scary thinking about the age and size of the universe.

 

[Halcyon]

Quite. If you consider existence infinite, then the boring old anthropic principle makes it inevitable that someone will be around to ask questions.

 

[Civvin]

Originally posted by polymath
Aah, OK, but evolution doesn't say anything about how life started. It just says what happens when life does get started.

Are you saying that someone or something 'started' life, then it evolved into what it is now? If that someone wasnt God, but some other lifeform, how did that lifeform start?

Now hold on before I assume you are thinking along lines as the atheists in this thread are and make a mistake what exactly are you saying?

I got this from your other post in this thread

Originally posted by polymath
Firstly this isn't true. It's possible not to believe in God and not to believe in evolution. However, I do think evolution is the best explanation for the evidence we have managed to accumulate, so let's continue.

Now I really dont follow? So you dont believe in evolution? nor in God? Please explain.

 

[newfangle]

I'd really like some religionist to eplain to me how any flaws in the evolutionary theory points to a god.

 

[Civvin]

Originally posted by Halcyon
Look, try to understand this simple concept. Being termed an atheist does not require a belief in Darwinism. It doesn't even exclude you from belief in creationism - you might think that the world and its denizens were made by aliens, or Vladimir Putin. Being termed an atheist only requires that you not believe in the existence of divine entities. Nothing else!

Ok now you are stretching things beyond the reasonable. Are you playing semantics games now substituting God of the Bible for 'aliens' because you don't believe in that God?

If aliens created man, who created aliens, and if aliens did not evolve, ergo we are right back to God/supernatural being/whatever.

Being an atheist doesn't even exclude you from belief in creationism? I know I have gone out there a couple times in this thread but this is blowing me away? Please explain!!!

 

[Halcyon]

I thought I explained that adequately. Isn't it still creationism if you believe that the world and its denizens were created, but not by a deity? As such, you'd be an atheist creationist if you believed that..